PR CIT-21 vs. SHEKHAR MAHAJAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/262/2016HC DelhiDLHC01109808201628 April 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for its consideration. This is because the issue regarding the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act was already decided against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the High Court's own prior decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del). The Court found this precedent directly applicable to the present case, rendering the Revenue's appeal without a substantial legal question to be adjudicated. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi challenging an order dated 23rd September, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.4975/Del/2011 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal concerns the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act. The High Court noted that this specific issue was already decided against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by a previous decision of the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del). Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration before the High Court, given that the issue concerning the deletion of an addition made by the AO under Section 69B of the Act is covered by a prior decision of the High Court. Assessee's Contention: The Assessee did not explicitly argue before the High Court as the Court itself identified the precedent that decided the issue in favour of the Assessee. The Assessee would have implicitly relied on the ITAT's order which presumably followed the precedent. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the ITAT's order was erroneous and that the addition made by the AO under Section 69B should have been upheld. However, the Revenue's argument was rendered moot by the Court's recognition of the binding precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 262/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3. +

ITA 262/2016

PR CIT-21

..... Appellant Through: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior Standing counsel and Mr Aamir Aziz, Advocate.

versus

SHIKHAR MAHAJAN

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

28.04.2016 CM No.14125/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

ITA 262/2016 2. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 23rd September, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.4975/Del/2011 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2006-07.

3.

It is not in dispute that issue concerning deletion of the addition made by the AO under Section 69B of the Act is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del). Therefore, no

ITA 262/2016 Page 2 of 2

substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 28, 2016 MK

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →